Letters That Don't Make Any Sense

We do not need the letter for any particular reason, and we certainly do not need it in the sense that you have explained (to represent /s/ or /k/). Even if we got rid of it for these purposes, we could maintain the letter in a digraph, . As others have also mentioned, there are other ways to represent the sound traditionally represented by (a voiceless alveo-palatal affricate).

​

A better question would be: why do we have the letter ? If you'd like to explore that, then I'd be more than happy to input into an historical discussion on this particular letter. A cursory observation: I am unfamiliar with any other orthography that regularly employs both and , except in loanwords (which often form exceptions to many orthographic rules). A synchronic understanding might be a good place to start before delving into a diachronic discussion.

​

Great topic, by the way!

​

Jon

​

Edited by Jon, : Edited...

​

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Interesting point. If were removed from its current dual role, it could easily serve for /tʃ/, thus eliminating the need for a digraph in this function (whose value is also often ambiguous).Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Okay. So it is not as unusual as I had thought. This is interesting, of course, and it adds another aspect to the understanding of its current use that may be valuable in discovering its origins.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar